Re: Conflict resolution?

["G. Gervaise Davis III" <ggd@iplawyers.com>]

Tony- The criticism I have heard is from lawyers and from some 
engineers who told me that the ITU is bureaucratic and inflexible, 
and because of its intl nature takes forever to decide questions. I 
have no experience with them.

I suspect that the problem with the domain name issues is that there 
is no logical group to take this on, since it is both technical, 
political and economic in nature.  One thing is certain - it will not 
be resolved by ignoring it, oversimplfying it, or making arbitrary 
rules and decisions without regard to the economic realities.

Technology has here run straight into the buzz saw of economic 
realities vs. the slow moving legal systems of the world that have to 
work on concensus and provide some certainty to the business world.

As you deliberate on these issues, please remember the little 
businesses of the world who cannot afford to litigation with the big 
guys.  Take care of the little guys, since they are the growth of the 
world, while the big guys can fend for themselves!

gerry



On 21 Nov 96 at 8:55, Tony Rutkowski wrote:

Gervaise

>>>>>Tony, the problem is not liability, but the ability of IAHC or 
>its parent to create agreement on international legal issues like the
> treatment of TM's --- business and legal folks have tried for years
>to do this and are years from any agreement.  TM law is national in
>nature and IAHC is not going to be to internationalize it by rules,
>suggestions, or force - all we will do is create obstacles to
>cooperation if a group with a majority of US members gets involved in
> this mess.  My telecommunications lawyer friends tell me that the
>ITU is probably the worst international organization of all in
>resolving things of a common concern internationally.

You are absolutely right on the issue of creating agreements.
That is why the US Administration's NOIs on these and other Internet
related issues will be critical public forums.  Typically they are
conducted with an international orientation, and are done in a
coordinated fashion with many other organizations and administrations
around the world, and involve a broad cross-section of the public and
business communities.  However, there will still be residual liability
issues, because despite any agreements, disputes will certainly
continue to arise.  One of the advantages of public international
organizations is their freedom from such liabilities.  Of course,
choice of incorporation/operation venue is another way to minimize the
liability.

As to choice of forum - that needs to be well considered.  The ITU
criticism seems overly broad.  It is basically a technical-operational
organization, and it has enjoyed widespread support for its ability to
deliver international agreements working together with operators - an
unusual feature among public international organizations.  Its been
highly successful in doing this since the first legislative conference
was held in 1850 and the Berne Bureau (the original ITU Secretariat)
was set up in the legendary Louis Curchod's apartment in 1879.  As
every new telecommunication technology came along, operators
gravitated to the ITU.

However, because of its engineering orientation, the ITU has never
developed any significant dispute resolution mechanisms, nor have they
been much used.


cheers,
--Tony
G. Gervaise Davis III, Business and Intellectual Property Lawyer
Davis & Schroeder P.C., P.O. Box 3080, Monterey, CA 93942
voice - 408.649.1122      facsimile - 408.649.0566
Visit our WebPage at http://www.iplawyers.com for more information
and addresses of other members of the law firm.